I can see how messy having the 4 quadrant records for 6 different metrics could get. Though, it’d be nice if they were able to find a way to incorporate multiple ratings in the quadrant records. Say all results-based metrics.

It isn’t just top 50 wins anymore. The best wins (quadrant 1) will now be considered top 50 for neutral court, top 30 for home games, and top 75 for road games. How that changes the at-large chances for the MWC, I have no idea.
Not only are the definitions of good wins (and bad losses) changing to include the location of the game, the metrics used are also expanding. The committee will look at both results-based (win-loss only, no margin of victory) and predictive metrics. I think the results-based metrics used will be RPI, KPI, and BPI’s strength of record (SOR). The predictive metrics will be KenPom, BPI, and Sagarin.
I am slightly optimistic that the conference can get two bids. UNLV, BSU, and NEV have non-negligible chance to build respectable at large resumes. It definitely isn’t a shoe in. It will require the top 3 teams to avoid any losses to the bottom and home losses to teams that aren’t at the top.
It’ll be interesting to see how the numbers look at the end of the non conference schedule in a couple of weeks.
EDIT: After posting this, I saw that SDSU is losing to Cal at home. My optimism is dwindling.

Nay. The Wolf Pack, not the bowl executives, must be the ones who do the crushing of Rebel hearts.
Then us fans can exaggerate how crushing the loss actually was. We will make it seem like UNLV lost a chance at the Rose Bowl.